DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Interview Practice
Beginning October 2025, the USPTO is implementing an updated interview practice for patent examination: One interview per new application or RCE (Request for Continued Examination, see 37 CFR 1.114 and MPEP 706.07(h)) will generally be granted. Additional interview(s) which serve to advance prosecution may be granted with supervisory approval.
To request an interview, Applicant may, preferably, contact the Examiner at the telephone number provided at the end of this Office Action and/or Applicant may file an Applicant Initiated Interview Request (AIR) form (PTOL-413A), which may be found here: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms.
It may be useful to also file an Authorization for Internet Communications form (PTO/SB/439, also found at the link provided above), which would allow the Examiner to substantively respond to Applicant using electronic communication (i.e., via email).
If an interview is desired, it is advisable to request the interview sufficiently ahead of the due date of any response to an outstanding Office Action, to allow adequate time to schedule, prepare for, and hold the interview. Submission of an Interview Agenda by Applicant is also generally required (see MPEP 713.01(IV)).
Requests for interviews after final rejection may be denied and generally will be denied in cases where the interview is merely to restate arguments of record or to discuss new limitations which would require more than nominal reconsideration or new search (see MPEP 713.09).
Applicants Pro Se
In the Application Data Sheet of 09/02/2025, Applicant has provided a Customer Number in both the “Correspondence Information” and the “Representative Information” sections. Note that, for the latter, this is only for “all practitioners having a power of attorney in the application”. However, no Power of Attorney form (e.g., Form PTO/AIA /82A) has been filed in the instant application (see 37 CFR § 1.32). If Applicant is being represented by an attorney, it is recommended that a properly-signed Power of Attorney form be filed.
In case Applicant is acting Pro Se, the following is additionally noted. An examination of this application reveals that applicant is unfamiliar with patent prosecution procedure (see the numerous issues raised under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) below). While an applicant may prosecute the application (except that a juristic entity must be represented by a patent practitioner, 37 CFR 1.31), lack of skill in this field usually acts as a liability in affording the maximum protection for the invention disclosed. Applicant is advised to secure the services of a registered patent attorney or agent to prosecute the application, since the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting an attorney or agent.
A listing of registered patent attorneys and agents is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent attorneys and agents located in their area by writing to the Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
For assistance with filing related matters, the USPTO’s Electronic Business Center (EBC) may be contacted—information is provided at the end of this Office Action.
Should Applicant intend to continue prosecution of this or another patent application without assistance from a registered practitioner, Applicant is informed of the USPTO’s Pro Se Assistance Program, which may be reached, toll free, at 1-866-767-3848. Additional information may be found at the following internet address:
http://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/using-legal-services/pro-se-assistance-program
Applicant may also find assistance through the Law School Clinic Certification Program which includes over 60 participating law school clinics that provide legal services pro bono to the public, including to inventors, entrepreneurs, and small businesses.
Additional information may be found at the following internet address:
https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/ip-policy/public-information-about-practitioners/law-school-clinic-1
Preliminary Formalities
Claims 1-12 are substantially identical in scope to the claims filed 02/12/2021 in parent application 17/268,287, and have not been amended relative thereto to address the numerous issues raised previously under, at least, 35 U.S.C. §112(b) and 35 U.S.C. §1031. Applicant’s failure to address those issues—raised over three years ago—serves only to unduly and unreasonably delay prosecution.
In an effort to expedite prosecution and to assist Applicant in setting forth subject matter which could, possibly, clearly and patentably distinguish the invention, a thorough review of both the claims and the disclosure has been made. Pursuant to MPEP 707.07(j), and for the purposes of assisting Applicant and expediting prosecution, it is respectfully noted that there does not appear to be any patentable subject matter disclosed in the application.
Specifically, an extensive number of issues present, raised under both 35 U.S.C. §112(a) and 35 U.S.C. §112(b), would appear to preclude patentability of the instant invention. In order to address and correct at least the issues raised under 35 U.S.C. §112(a), it appears additional subject matter would need to be added to the disclosure. However, addition of new matter is impermissible pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §132(a) and 35 U.S.C. §112(a). Furthermore, there does not appear to be subject matter—for which adequate written description has been provided in the originally-filed disclosure—which could form the basis of a patentably distinct and unobvious claim in light of the prior art of record.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 10/14/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Specifically, no full copy of Foreign Document “WO 2019129899” to Blanco et al. was provided in the application. As such, this document was not considered.
N.B. – A copy including the front matter and a poor image quality English translation was provided; however, a full copy of the actual “WO 2019/129899” publication was not provided.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 4, 6, 7, 12 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 1, 4, 6, 7, each element and/or step should be separated by a line indentation. See 37 CFR 1.75(i), MPEP 608.01(m).
Regarding claim 1, line 11, the limitation ends in a period while the claim appears to continue for another two lines. The period should be deleted.
Regarding claim 12, line 1, the limitation “an actuator and motor” should be “an actuator and a motor,” as the noun “motor” is missing an article.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) ELEMENT IN CLAIM FOR A COMBINATION.—An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for
performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support
thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material,
or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The term “actuator” in claims 11-12. The term “actuator” does not connote any specific structure and may be interpreted as, e.g., —a means for actuating—. As such, it meets the three-prong test described above for invoking interpretation under 35 U.S.C. §112(f).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5, 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “further comprising a wind vane positioned along a vertical center axis inside a rotational trajectory of rotors of one or more of the vertical axis wind turbine assemblies” (emphasis added) appears to comprise subject matter which was not described in the specification as originally filed.
Notably, the specification fails to make clear what a “rotational trajectory of rotors” may comprise or how such a “wind vane” may be “positioned […] inside” such a “rotational trajectory of rotors”. The specification fails to discuss this feature, the drawings fail to illustrate this feature, and the only mention of a “rotational trajectory” is in the instant claim and “Clause 6” which generally repeats the language of the instant claim.
Thus, it is found that the subject matter noted above was not described in the specification as originally filed in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “further comprising […] stationary carousel tracks outside of each of the plurality of amplification modules securely fixed to a top and a bottom of the wind amplification module” (emphasis added) appears to comprise subject matter which was not described in the specification as originally filed.
Notably, the specification fails to make clear what the “stationary carousel tracks” may comprise or how such “stationary carousel tracks” may be “securely fixed to a top and a bottom of the wind amplification module” as claimed. The specification fails to discuss this feature, the drawings fail to illustrate this feature, and the only mention of a “rotational trajectory” is in the instant claim as well as “Clause 8” and “Clause 10,” which generally repeat the language of the instant claim and claim 9, respectively.
Thus, it is found that the subject matter noted above was not described in the specification as originally filed in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “a yawable frame assembly that connects together a set of the fairing, vertical axis wind turbine assemblies, and wind vanes per module level” appears to comprise subject matter which was not described in the specification as originally filed.
Notably, the specification fails to make clear what a “yawable frame assembly” may comprise or how such a “yawable frame assembly” may “connect[] together a set of the fairing, vertical axis wind turbine assemblies, and wind vanes per module level,” including what structure(s) may allow the listed elements to be “connect[ed] together”.
The specification mentions this feature in, e.g., paragraphs ¶¶ 28-29 of the Summary section, as well as in “Clause[s]” 9-11, 14 (which correspond, generally to the instant claims), but fails to provide any written description thereof in the Detailed Description section. Furthermore, though the feature is named, the specification does not provide a written description of what the “yawable frame assembly” may be or what structure(s) it may comprise.
Note, too, that the specification fails to make clear what a “a set of the fairing, vertical axis wind turbine assemblies, and wind vanes per module level” (whatever this might mean, see corresponding indefiniteness rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) below) may comprise
Thus, it is found that the subject matter noted above was not described in the specification as originally filed in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “the rollers are connected to both a top and a bottom of a stationary carousel track” (emphasis added) appears to comprise subject matter which was not described in the specification as originally filed. See above regarding claim 7 for further discussion.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “one or more sets of rollers fixed to a cluster of components including the vertical axis wind turbine assembly, the continuously variable transmission, and the generator assembly such that the cluster can be moved onto and off of the yawable frame assembly” appears to comprise subject matter which was not described in the specification as originally filed.
Notably, the specification fails to provide a written description of “one or more sets of rollers” at all, especially of “one or more sets of rollers” which are, specifically, “fixed to a cluster of components […] such that the cluster can be moved onto and off of the yawable frame assembly,” including what structure(s) may allow the “cluster” to be “moved onto and off of the yawable frame assembly” as claimed. The specification only mentions these features in “Clause[s] 4, 9, 11” but these generally repeat language of the instant claims and, though the features may be named, the specification does not provide a written description of what each may be or what structure(s) each may comprise to allow the functionality to be performed.
Thus, it is found that the subject matter noted above was not described in the specification as originally filed in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 11-12, the limitation “further comprising an actuator and a motor […]” appears to comprise subject matter which was not described in the specification as originally filed.
As discussed above, the limitation “an actuator” appears to invoke, and is being interpreted under, 35 U.S.C. §112(f).
However, the specification fails to make clear what, in the context of the invention, an “actuator” may be or what corresponding structure(s) it may comprise. The specification discusses this feature in only a single paragraph, ¶ 25, and mentions the term in the “Clause[s]” at the end of the specification (which appear to correspond to claims, perhaps as filed in the foreign Office of Original Examination, rather than any detailed description of the invention). However, though the feature is named, the specification does not provide a written description of what it may be or what corresponding structure(s) it may comprise.
Specifically, the specification states: “[0025] Adjustable Vane Angle. To supplement the positioning of the wind vanes both outside and inside the VAWT turbine assemblies, small motors and actuators can be added to each vane to allow for real-time adjustment of the angle of the vanes to the oncoming wind flows […]” (emphasis added). It only alleges that “actuators can be added,” without providing any written description regarding i) what the “actuators” may actually be or comprise; or ii) how such “actuators” may be “added” in order “to allow for real-time adjustment of the angle of the vanes […]”.
Thus, it is found that the subject matter noted above was not described in the specification as originally filed in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 9-11, and claim 12, they are dependent on claim 5 and claim 8, respectively, and thereby inherit the respective deficiencies thereof.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1-12, the claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors as well as generally ambiguous language. The structure which goes to make up the claimed apparatus must be clearly and positively specified in such a manner as to present a complete operative device.
The following examples of language failing to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, are given for Applicant’s benefit. The following, however, may not constitute a complete listing of ambiguous language present in the pending claim(s).
Regarding claim 1, lines 6-8, the limitation “at least one fairing positioned in the middle and front of the plurality of vertical axis wind turbine assemblies to bisect a wind stream to allow the wind stream to flow across the sides of at least one of the plurality of vertically stacked wind amplification module” (emphasis added) is vague and indefinite.
First, the limitations “the middle and front,” “the sides” are recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim, thereby rendering the claimed invention vague and indefinite.
Second, the phrase “the middle and front of the plurality of vertical axis wind turbine assemblies” fails to make clear whether reference is being made to both a “middle” and a “front”—i.e., to two separate things—or whether the term “the middle and front of the plurality […]” is intended to refer to a single feature which is given the collective term “middle and front”.
N.B. – The above issues were noted in the Non-Final Office Action of 10/06/2022 in Parent App. No. 17/268,287 and should have been corrected by Applicant prior to/with filing of the instant application so as to facilitate and expedite prosecution herein. Failure to do so only results in unreasonable and undue delay in prosecution.
Third, the phrase “the middle and front” is singular whereas the “plurality of vertical axis wind turbine assemblies” refers to a plurality of elements—the claim fails to make clear how a “plurality of […] assemblies” may be referred to with a singular “middle and front”.
Regarding claim 1, lines 9-10, the limitation “at least one of the plurality of vertical axis wind turbine rotor assemblies, vanes, and fairing is located in a cavity” is vague and indefinite.
First, the limitation “the plurality of vertical axis wind turbine rotor assemblies, vanes, and fairing” is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, thereby rendering the claimed invention vague and indefinite.
Second, and relatedly, the limitation is not grammatically correct; the claim fails to make clear whether reference is being made to all of the “assemblies,” and the “vanes,” and the “fairing” together, as an assembly, or whether they should be identified separately.
N.B. – The above issues were noted in the Non-Final Office Action of 10/06/2022 in Parent App. No. 17/268,287 and have not been corrected by Applicant prior to/with filing of the instant application.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “the plurality of adjustable wind vanes are positioned behind the plurality of vertical axis wind turbine assemblies” (emphasis added) is vague and indefinite.
First, the term “behind” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The claim fails to make clear relative to what other element(s) or feature(s) the “plurality of adjustable wind vanes” may be “positioned behind the plurality of vertical axis wind turbine assemblies”.
Second, it appears to contradict the limitation of claim 1, requiring “the plurality of adjustable wind vanes are positioned between the plurality of vertical axis wind turbine assemblies” (lines 12-13, emphasis added). Which is it—“between” or “behind”? If, somehow, both requirements are to be met, further clarification should be provided.
N.B. – The above issues were noted in the Non-Final Office Action of 10/06/2022 in Parent App. No. 17/268,287 (relative to identical limitations in claim 3 thereof) and have not been corrected by Applicant prior to/with filing of the instant application.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “further comprising a generator assembly located beneath, above, or within the spinning trajectory of rotors of each of the plurality of vertical axis wind turbine rotor assemblies” (emphasis added) is vague and indefinite.
First, the limitations “the spinning trajectory,” “the plurality of vertical axis wind turbine rotor assemblies” (emphasis added) are recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim, thereby rendering the claimed invention vague and indefinite.
Second, the claim fails to make clear what a “spinning trajectory” may comprise.
Third, the claim fails to make clear whether the “the plurality of vertical axis wind turbine rotor assemblies” is the same as, or separate from, the “plurality of vertical axis wind turbine assemblies” or if one or more “rotor assemblies” were intended to be additionally claimed.
N.B. – The above issues were noted in the Non-Final Office Action of 10/06/2022 in Parent App. No. 17/268,287 (relative to identical limitations in claim 4 thereof) and have not been corrected by Applicant prior to/with filing of the instant application.
Fourth, the phrase “the spinning trajectory of rotors of each of the plurality of vertical axis wind turbine rotor assemblies” is grammatically ambiguous. The phrase introduces a single “spinning trajectory” of a plurality of “rotors”—the claim fails to make clear how a plurality of “rotors” may have only a single “spinning trajectory”. Furthermore, the limitation appears to introduce a plurality of “rotors” for “each of the plurality of vertical axis wind turbine rotor assemblies”—i.e., “each” assembly would have a plurality of “rotors”—and the claim fails to make clear how this may be possible, as a “rotor assembl[y]” would only appear to comprise a single “rotor,” not a plurality of “rotors”.
Regarding claim 4, the limitations “the at least one of the plurality of vertical axis wind turbine rotor assemblies” (lines 2-3) and “the plurality of vertical axis wind turbine rotor assemblies” (line 4, emphasis added) are recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim, thereby rendering the claimed invention vague and indefinite.
Regarding claim 4, the limitations “a continuously variable transmission coupled to the at least one of the plurality of vertical axis wind turbine rotor assemblies” and “a sensor coupled to at least one of the plurality of vertical axis wind turbine rotor assemblies” (emphasis added) are vague and indefinite. Notably, the claim fails to make clear whether the newly-introduced “at least one […]” is the same as, or separate and distinct from the previously-recited “the at least one […]”.
N.B. – The above issues were noted in the Non-Final Office Action of 10/06/2022 in Parent App. No. 17/268,287 (relative to identical limitations in claim 5 thereof) and have not been corrected by Applicant prior to/with filing of the instant application.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “further comprising a wind vane positioned along a vertical center axis inside a rotational trajectory of rotors of one or more of the vertical axis wind turbine assemblies” (emphasis added) is vague and indefinite.
First, the claim fails to make clear to what element(s) the “vertical center axis” may belong. It should also be noted that the term “vertical” is a relative term which renders the limitation indefinite. The claim fails to clearly set forth a point or plane of reference by which to define the term “vertical”.
Second, the claim fails to make clear what feature(s) may be “inside a rotational trajectory”—e.g., the “wind vane” or the “vertical center axis”.
Third, the claim fails to make clear what a “rotational trajectory” may comprise, and how a plurality of “rotors” may have a single “rotational trajectory” as the claim appears to set forth.
N.B. – The above issues were noted in the Non-Final Office Action of 10/06/2022 in Parent App. No. 17/268,287 (relative to identical limitations in claim 6 thereof) and have not been corrected by Applicant prior to/with filing of the instant application.
Fourth, the claim fails to make clear how “one […] of the vertical axis wind turbine assemblies” may comprise a plurality of “rotors” as the claim appears to indicate.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “further comprising one or more rotor blades within each of the plurality of vertical axis wind turbine rotor assemblies” (emphasis added) is vague and indefinite.
First, the limitation “the plurality of vertical axis wind turbine rotor assemblies” (emphasis added) is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, thereby rendering the claimed invention vague and indefinite.
N.B. – The above issue(s) was/were noted in the Non-Final Office Action of 10/06/2022 in Parent App. No. 17/268,287 (relative to identical limitation(s) in claim 7 thereof) and have not been corrected by Applicant prior to/with filing of the instant application.
Second, the preposition “within” is unclear—it would appear that a “rotor blade[]” would be —comprised by— the “rotor assembl[y]” rather than “within” the “rotor assembl[y]”. If “within” is indeed the intended preposition, Applicant should explain how a “blade” may be “within” a “rotor”.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “the one or more rotor blades each has an edge substantially conforming to a curvilinear contour of the cavity” is vague and indefinite.
First, the phrase “the one or more rotor blades each has an edge” is grammatically incorrect and is, additionally, unclear. Notably, the term “each” would appear to signify that there are more than one “rotor blade” elements, but the claim only explicitly requires “one” with the potential that there be “more”—so can there be only “one” or are “more” required (as would appear to be indicated by use of the term “each”)?
Second, the term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Third, the phrase “conforming to a curvilinear contour of the cavity” not idiomatic and is, consequently, vague and indefinite. Notably, the claim fails to make clear what “conforming to a curvilinear contour” is intended to describe.
N.B. – The above issue(s) was/were noted in the Non-Final Office Action of 10/06/2022 in Parent App. No. 17/268,287 (relative to identical limitation(s) in claim 7 thereof) and have not been corrected by Applicant prior to/with filing of the instant application.
Fourth, the claim fails to make clear whether the “curvilinear contour of the cavity” may be the same as, related to, or is different from, the “curvilinear surface” which “form[s]” the “cavity,” as set forth in claim 1, upon which claim 6 is dependent.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “a tower comprised of a stacked set of wind amplification modules” is vague and indefinite. The claim fails to make clear whether the newly-recited “a stacked set of wind amplification modules” is the same as, or separate and distinct from, the previously-recited “a plurality of vertically stacked wind amplification modules” set forth in claim 1.
N.B. – The above issue(s) was/were noted in the Non-Final Office Action of 10/06/2022 in Parent App. No. 17/268,287 (relative to identical limitation(s) in claim 8 thereof) and have not been corrected by Applicant prior to/with filing of the instant application.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “stationary carousel tracks outside of each of the plurality of amplification modules securely fixed to a top and a bottom of the wind amplification module” (emphasis added) is vague and indefinite.
First, the claim fails to make clear what “stationary carousel tracks” may comprise and what purpose(s) such “tracks” may serve, including, for example, what element(s) may be, e.g., carried by the “tracks”.
Second, the claim fails to make clear what element(s) may be “fixed to a top and a bottom […]”, and how they may be “fixed” to both a “top” and “bottom”. If the same “stationary carousel tracks” are intended to be “fixed” to both a “top” and “bottom,” it should be explained how this is possible, as no “stationary carousel tracks” which are “fixed” to both a “top” and “bottom of the wind amplification module” appear to be disclosed.
N.B. – The above issue(s) was/were noted in the Non-Final Office Action of 10/06/2022 in Parent App. No. 17/268,287 (relative to identical limitation(s) in claim 8 thereof) and have not been corrected by Applicant prior to/with filing of the instant application.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “a yawable frame assembly that connects together a set of the fairing, vertical axis wind turbine assemblies, and wind vanes per module level” (emphasis added) is generally narrative, not idiomatic, and is, consequently, vague and indefinite.
First, the features of “vertical axis wind turbine assemblies” and “wind vanes” are missing appropriate articles and thus fail to make clear whether reference to previously-introduced features is intended to be made or whether new features are being introduced.
Second, the claim fails to make clear what “a set of the fairing, vertical axis wind turbine assemblies, and wind vanes” is intended to refer to. Are the features listed being grouped together in “a set”? If so, such should be made clear.
N.B. – The above issue(s) was/were noted in the Non-Final Office Action of 10/06/2022 in Parent App. No. 17/268,287 (relative to identical limitation(s) in claim 9 thereof) and have not been corrected by Applicant prior to/with filing of the instant application.
Third, and relatedly, the claim fails to make clear what is intended by the phrase “per module level”.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “one or more sets of rollers fixed to the yawable frame that connects together a top and a bottom of the fairing, vertical axis wind turbines assemblies, and wind vane assemblies, wherein the rollers are connected to both a top and a bottom of a stationary carousel track” (emphasis added) is vague and indefinite.
First, the limitation “the yawable frame that connects […]” is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Second, the claim fails to make clear what element(s) serve(s) to “connect[] together a top and a bottom […]”.
Third, the claim fails to make clear what “the fairing, vertical axis wind turbines assemblies, and wind vane assemblies” may comprise. As previously discussed, the features of “vertical axis wind turbines assemblies” and “wind vane assemblies” are missing appropriate articles and thus fail to make clear whether reference to previously-introduced features are intended to be made or whether new features are being introduced.
N.B. – The above issue(s) was/were noted in the Non-Final Office Action of 10/06/2022 in Parent App. No. 17/268,287 (relative to identical limitation(s) in claim 10 thereof) and have not been corrected by Applicant prior to/with filing of the instant application.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “one or more sets of rollers fixed to a cluster of components including the vertical axis wind turbine assembly, the continuously variable transmission, and the generator assembly such that the cluster can be moved onto and off of the yawable frame assembly” is vague and indefinite.
First, the limitations “the vertical axis wind turbine assembly” (recited in the singular), “the continuously variable transmission,” and “the generator assembly” are recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim, thereby rendering the claimed invention vague and indefinite.
Second, and consequently, the claim fails to make clear how the claimed features may be structurally associated with and/or connected to each other.
N.B. – The above issue(s) was/were noted in the Non-Final Office Action of 10/06/2022 in Parent App. No. 17/268,287 (relative to identical limitation(s) in claim 11 thereof) and have not been corrected by Applicant prior to/with filing of the instant application.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “an actuator and a motor connected to each of the adjustable wind vanes on each of the plurality of modules” is vague and indefinite.
First, the limitation “an actuator and a motor connected to each of the adjustable wind vanes” is vague and indefinite. Notably, the terms “actuator” and “motor,” in context of the invention, appear to be synonymous. The claim fails to make clear how these may be separate and distinct from one another, and how both the “actuator” and the “motor” may be “connected to each of the adjustable wind vanes” as claimed. For the purpose of examination, the phrase “an actuator and a motor connected to each of the adjustable wind vanes” will be interpreted as: —a motor connected to each of the adjustable wind vanes—.
N.B. – The above issue(s) was/were noted in the Non-Final Office Action of 10/06/2022 in Parent App. No. 17/268,287 (relative to identical limitation(s) in claim 12 thereof) and have not been corrected by Applicant prior to/with filing of the instant application.
Second, the limitation “the adjustable wind vanes on each of the plurality of modules” is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, thereby rendering the claimed invention vague and indefinite.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “an actuator and motor connected to each of the wind vanes located along the center axis inside the trajectory of the vertical axis wind turbine rotors” is generally narrative and is, thus, vague and indefinite.
First, the limitation “the wind vanes” is recited in the plural (with the additional recitation of “each” indicating a plurality of “wind vanes”). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, thereby rendering the claimed invention vague and indefinite. Notably, the claim fails to make clear whether reference was intended to be made to the single “wind vane” introduced in claim 5, or to the “plurality of adjustable wind vanes” recited in claim 1.
Second, the phrase “an actuator and motor connected to each of the wind vanes located along the center axis inside the trajectory of the vertical axis wind turbine rotors” fails to make clear what element(s) is/are “located along the center axis”.
Third, the phrase fails to make clear what is “inside the trajectory of the vertical axis wind turbine rotors,” as well as what the “trajectory of the vertical axis wind turbine rotors” may comprise.
Fourth, the terms “actuator” and “motor,” in context of the invention, appear to be synonymous. The claim fails to make clear how these may be separate and distinct from one another, and how both the “actuator” and the “motor” may be “connected to each of the wind vanes” as claimed. For the purpose of examination, the phrase “further comprising an actuator and motor connected to each of the wind vanes located along the center axis inside the trajectory of the vertical axis wind turbine rotors” will be interpreted as: —further comprising a motor connected to each of the adjustable wind vanes—.
N.B. – The above issue(s) was/were noted in the Non-Final Office Action of 10/06/2022 in Parent App. No. 17/268,287 (relative to identical limitation(s) in claim 13 thereof) and have not been corrected by Applicant prior to/with filing of the instant application.
Regarding claims 2-12, they are dependent on claim 1 and thereby inherit the deficiencies thereof.
For the purpose of expediting prosecution, prior art will be applied in reference to the claims as best understood by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 11, 12, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cory (US 2013/0236306 A1) in view of Ohlmann (US 2004/0141845 A1).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Cory discloses a wind power generating system (augmented wind power generation system 200), comprising:
a plurality of vertical axis wind turbine assemblies (rotor assemblies 204 comprising vertical axis wind turbine [VAWT] rotors; see, e.g., Abstract, ¶¶ 34-37);
a plurality of vertically stacked wind amplification modules (plurality of vertically stacked wind amplification modules 202; see, e.g., ¶ 35), including at least one toroidal shaped module (see, e.g., ¶ 35: modules 202 may be shaped to create a plurality of substantial semi-toroidal cavities around the tower);
wherein at least one of the plurality of vertical axis wind turbine rotor assemblies (rotor assemblies 204) is located in a cavity (cavities/channels 210) formed by a curvilinear surface of one or more of the wind amplification modules (wind amplification modules 202; see, e.g., Fig. 2).
However, Cory appears to be silent regarding use of adjustable wind vanes and a fairing.
On the other hand, and as best understood, Ohlmann (Figures 1-4) discloses a wind power generating system (vertical axis wind turbine [VAWT], see Fig. 1) comprising:
a plurality of vertical axis wind turbine assemblies (vertical axis rotors 11);
a plurality of adjustable wind vanes (deflector flaps 18 which hinge at vertical hinges 17 and thus are adjustable in position); and
at least one fairing (guide vane 16) positioned in the middle and front of the plurality of vertical axis wind turbine assemblies (vertical axis rotors 11) to bisect a wind stream (wind W is bisected by guide vane 16) to allow the wind stream to flow across the sides of at least one (here, of both vertical axis rotors 11) of the vertical axis wind turbine assemblies (see Fig. 1);
wherein the plurality of adjustable wind vanes (rotatable deflector flaps 18) are positioned between the plurality of vertical axis wind turbine assemblies (vertical axis rotors 11).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Cory with the use of adjustable vanes and a fairing, as taught by Ohlmann, for the purpose of facilitating safe operation at higher than rated wind speeds (see, e.g., ¶¶ 34-35).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, the combination of Cory and Ohlmann further renders obvious a generator (Cory: electrical generator 510) assembly located beneath, above, or within the spinning trajectory of rotors of each of the plurality of vertical axis wind turbine rotor assemblies (Cory: see, e.g., Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, the combination of Cory and Ohlmann further renders obvious:
a continuously variable transmission (Cory: continuous variable transmission [CVT] 506) coupled to at least one of the plurality of vertical axis wind turbine rotor assemblies (see, e.g., Fig. 5);
a sensor (Cory: sensor, no separate number given) coupled to at least one of the plurality of vertical axis wind turbine rotor assemblies (Cory: see, e.g., claims 5, 12, 21); and
a controller (Cory: CVT controller 508), electrically coupled to the sensor and to the continuously variable transmission, wherein the generator assembly is mechanically coupled to the continuously variable transmission (Cory: see, e.g., ¶ 41, claims 5, 21).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, the combination of Cory and Ohlmann further renders obvious a wind vane (Cory: e.g., tailfins 310, 310A, 310B; see, e.g., Fig. 3B, ¶ 51) positioned along a vertical center axis inside a rotational trajectory of rotors of one or more of the vertical axis wind turbine assemblies (see, e.g., ¶ 51).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, the combination of Cory and Ohlmann further renders obvious one or more rotor blades (Cory: blades/multi-blade configuration 308; see, e.g., Figs. 3, 3A) within each of the plurality of vertical axis wind turbine rotor assemblies (Cory: rotor assemblies 204), wherein the one or more rotor blades each has an edge substantially conforming to a curvilinear contour of the cavity (Cory: see, e.g., ¶¶ 34, 38: blades of the VAWT rotors shaped to conform to the curvilinear shape or profile of the tower wall to access the fastest wind speeds near the tower).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, the combination of Cory and Ohlmann further renders obvious a yawable frame assembly (Cory: yawable platform 702) that connects together a set of the vertical axis wind turbine assemblies (Cory: see, e.g., Fig. 7: rotor assemblies 204A and 204B may be mounted on a platform 702, which may be rotatably mounted to the central tower 704).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, the combination of Cory and Ohlmann further renders obvious a motor (Ohlmann: servo gear motor) connected to each of the adjustable wind vanes on each of the plurality of modules (Ohlmann: see, e.g., ¶ 35).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, the combination of Cory and Ohlmann further renders obvious a motor (Ohlmann: servo gear motor) connected to each of the adjustable wind vanes (Ohlmann: rotatable deflector flaps 18; see, e.g., ¶ 35).
Claim 2, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cory (US 2013/0236306 A1) in view of Ohlmann (US 2004/0141845 A1) and further in view of Holter et al. (US 2003/0133782 A1)
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, the combination of Cory and Ohlmann renders obvious the invention as claimed but the references appear to be silent regarding the possibility that the plurality of adjustable wind vanes may be positioned behind the vertical axis wind turbines.
On the other hand, Holter et al. (Figures 1-3) discloses a wind power generating system (wind turbine apparatus 10) comprising a vertical axis wind turbine assembly (turbine wheel 40), a plurality of adjustable wind vanes (spring-loaded vertical fins 50a and 50b), at least one fairing (vertical damper panels 30) positioned in the middle and front of the vertical axis wind turbine assembly to intersect a wind stream (see, e.g., Figs. 1, 2: vertical damper panels 30 are centrally positioned in air inlet opening 22, in front of turbine wheel 40, and intersect incoming air stream) wherein, notably,
that the plurality of adjustable wind vanes (vertical fins 50a and 50b) are positioned behind (see, e.g., Figs. 1-3) the vertical axis wind turbine assembly (turbine wheel 40).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Cory with the use of adjustable wind vanes which are positioned behind the vertical axis wind turbine assembly, as taught by Holter et al., for the purpose of stabilizing the system during very high wind conditions (see, e.g., ¶ 39).
Claims 7, 9, 10, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cory (US 2013/0236306 A1) in view of Ohlmann (US 2004/0141845 A1) and further in view of Lusk (US 6,629,815 B2).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, the combination of Cory and Ohlmann further renders obvious a tower (Cory: tower, having tower surface 102; see Fig. 2) comprised of a stacked set of wind amplification modules (Cory: modules 202).
Regarding claims 7, 9, 10, however, Cory appears to be silent regarding explicit use of a support system for the turbine system components, including use of both stationary carousel tracks and one or more sets of rollers to connect to stationary carousel track(s).
It is first noted that claims 8, 10, and 11, as discussed above, fail to clearly and definitely set forth the metes and bounds of patent protection sought, including what may comprise the “stationary carousel tracks” and “sets of rollers” and how both of these may be structurally connected to, and operate with, the other features of the invention. Note that neither of these features appears to be shown in the figures or adequately described in the specification.
However, for the purpose of expediting prosecution, the following is additionally noted.
On the other hand, Lusk (Figures 1-18) discloses a wind power generating system comprising a vertical axis wind turbine assembly (VAWT 10/12/15-19, etc.), a tower (e.g., tower formed by center shaft 60, see Figs. 1, 2, 5-10), and notably discloses:
stationary carousel tracks (e.g., rings 20, 90, 110, 120, toric rails 21 of rolling assembly 40); and
one or more sets of rollers (wheels 42) fixed to a frame (e.g., frame formed by legs 95 or radial arms 50) and/or a cluster of components (see, e.g., Fig. 5: components comprising blades 30, radial arms 50, center shaft 60).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Cory with the explicit use of support mechanisms, including, e.g., stationary carousel tracks and one or more sets of rollers, as taught by Lusk, for the purpose of distributing the weight of the rotor blades to the periphery of the turbine, thereby allowing for a larger wind turbine having higher power generation capability (see, e.g., col. 3, ll. 6-20).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 11-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-7, 12 of copending Application No. 17/268,287 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The pending claims are subsumed within the co-pending claims; that is, as best as they may be understood, they recite subsets of limitations recited in the co-pending claims, and thus would be anticipated or rendered obvious by the co-pending claims, as shown in the correspondence table below.
Application 19/316,275
Pending Claim(s)
Co-Pending App. No. 17/268,287
Corresponding Claim(s)
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 3
Claim 4
Claim 4
Claim 5
Claim 5
Claim 6
Claim 6
Claim 7
Claim 8
Claim 1
Claim 11
Claim 12
Claim 12
Claim 12
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited all disclose a wind power generating system and teach, either partially or substantially, the claimed invention.
Applicant, in preparing a response, should fully consider each of the references in its entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claims, other passages and figures may apply.
Applicant, in preparing a response, should fully consider each of the references in its entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention.
The Examiner requests, in response to this Office Action, that support be shown for all language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, to specifically note the page(s) and line number(s) in the original specification and/or drawing figure(s) where support for newly added claim language may be found. No new matter may be added.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to S. MIKAILOFF whose telephone number is (571) 270-7894. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 10am - 6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, T.C. PATEL can be reached at (571) 272-2098. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S. MIKAILOFF/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
February 13, 2026
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
1 See Non-Final Office Action of 10/06/2022 for 17/268,287.